RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 18:02:Liberal policies always shrink the middle class, read a history book instead of trying to redefine it like your ilk always does.

If you really wanted to strengthen the middle class you'd not be voting for democrats in the first place.

I get it, you want to pick and choose certain aspects of the economy to paint a pretty picture, reality doesn't work like that.

Again you know nothing about me, stop claiming you do mr I make so much money but give nothing back. Want to pay more taxes? Go head, I doubt the government would tell you no. There you go, there's your solution! All you liberals that claim all we need to do is tax more can just give up more. Win win!

Can you name a frickin' history book you want me to read?

You get nothing. If you really got something, you'd point to some empirical evidence. You'd mention a book.

You never, ever do. Ever. You just throw out your own conjecture. You never attempt to back it with research, whether yours (showing the figures your using), or someone reputable's (by linking to their book or study.)

Your whole "pay more taxes if you'd like" shows that you know nothing. Again, I have not once complained about the people in this thread, despite your insistence of the "evil CEOs" strawman. I've complained about the system/rules.

I know plenty about you:1) Not overly well educated. One degree, from a mid-tier school or below. UMass Boston perhaps2) IQ likely around the 110 area, give or take 10%3) Degree was a technical one. Some liberal arts classes may have been thrown in, but nothing above the 101 or 102 level4) Likely from a lower-middle-class upbringing. Comfortable, but not incredible5) Parents born with little to nothing6) Watches a good amount of cable news7) Watches a lot of YouTube videos of a political/conspiracy nature8) Reads a lot of "fringe" news sites. By "fringe" I mean not mainstream, or close to it. This is where you feel the "real" stories are9) Never reads sites that aren't preaching to your choir, so to speak10) International travel has been limited mostly to tourist areas. You've probably been to Montreal and Cancun. Maybe a few bigger European cities

I love how you're trying to make a thread that has proven what a failure Obamacare has been about me somehow.

Not gonna bite beamer. Like I've said, you're one of those condescending pricks who thinks he knows everything about everything regardless of topic and you're not afraid to say so. People like you that are so full of themselves aren't worth the time to give them what they want.

I'm not the first person who's had it out with you, I won't be the last, maybe you should look at yourself before trying to dissect others.

Wow Blue -- you just lost a reader. A reader that doesn't use ad blockers. Did someone 'tell on' me or is it just your bias against me? While this comment might have warranted removal, the last one you removed did not (it was a link to an article!).

There are plenty of other people that post insults here and you have no problem leaving them unremoved.

And don't even try and justify it with language appropriateness based on age. Some of the ads you have on your site are offensive and very inappropriate (F2P MMORPG's with blatant sexual content anyone?).

Your actions prove that you are an asshole as well. You have yet to justify them.

I challenge you to leave this post intact -- I'm just calling a spade a spade, and I encourage you and others to justify your actions.

Nothing new, the usual suspects can insult you all day long because they're part of the BN clique. I've had threads deleted that were on topic, had zero personal insults towards anyone, but because they were anti democrat, poof, gone.

It's typical and it isn't the only site you'll see it on. Liberals love their echo chambers.

Cutter wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 18:50:Reagan was a clown that deeply divided the country. And he prolonged the cold war, he didn't end it. And you're saying anyone was worse than Dubya? Jesus, you really do live in your own little fantasy world. Seek professional psychiatric help and get on some meds. Seriously.

Carter, prior to Obama is the worse president in this country's history, yeah there's been plenty of president's worse than Junior, plenty. Nixon? LBJ? Plenty Cutter plenty.

I predict Obama to always be controversial, like Reagan, but further behind. He'll sit in the mid 20s, probably, or high 20s. You really need 20 years to know the effects of a president, but this would be my guess. He hasn't accomplished much, other than some obvious things (some of the gay rights), and one big thing off to a miserable start.

It's hard to do something to break into the top 20 without having been a hero or a legend, and he won't be either. Well, breaking a race barrier will give him some legend, but nothing that overcomes a wishy washy presidency.

We obviously need to see how the ACA plays out, I don't think anyone can claim at this point though that it hasn't been anything but one huge failure so far though. Much like most of the rest of his promises, transparency, closing Gitmo, promising to not be partisan when he's been one of the most partisan president's in my lifetime. etc.

I think the thing with Obama is he thought corrupt Chicago style politics would work for the entire country, he was obviously very wrong. I also think and saying this certainly won't win me any pats on the back but I don't bite my tongue for anyone, that he's more than likely quite racist. Considering the 19 years he sat in the pews of Rev Wright's church and some of the comments his wife has made.

Cutter wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 18:50:Reagan was a clown that deeply divided the country. And he prolonged the cold war, he didn't end it. And you're saying anyone was worse than Dubya? Jesus, you really do live in your own little fantasy world. Seek professional psychiatric help and get on some meds. Seriously.

Carter, prior to Obama is the worse president in this country's history, yeah there's been plenty of president's worse than Junior, plenty. Nixon? LBJ? Plenty Cutter plenty.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 19:32:Carter sucked, but in no way is he worse than Jackson, Pierce, Filmore, Johnson, Tyler (who defended slavery), and Harding (who famously let his rich friends trash the country!)

Harrison, in office for 30 days, beats them all.

Fair enough, I was more meaning within this past generation. Sure if you wanna go way back presidents like Pierce and the like being pro slavery certainly qualify.

Cutter wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 18:50:Reagan was a clown that deeply divided the country. And he prolonged the cold war, he didn't end it. And you're saying anyone was worse than Dubya? Jesus, you really do live in your own little fantasy world. Seek professional psychiatric help and get on some meds. Seriously.

Carter, prior to Obama is the worse president in this country's history, yeah there's been plenty of president's worse than Junior, plenty. Nixon? LBJ? Plenty Cutter plenty.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 16:42:This is why I keep telling you you're illogical when talking about the economy, you cannot just pick and choose what factors affect an economy to suit your bias, you either talk about EVERYTHING that encompasses an economy, or you shut the fuck up.

Who do you think buys the products or services that corporations make & provide that contribute to an economy? The poor? Only other 1%'ers? Just the middle class? No EVERYONE but especially the middle class.

How do you think government spending affects investments, that then affects job growth and growth in general? Oh whats that? Government spending doesn't matter? Just taxes matter?

This is why I hate even bringing up economy with you, because you clearly have no fucking idea how the economy actually works, or just how many factors tie into it. You just repeat over and over the same flawed liberal class warfare bullshit talking points that no matter how many times you say it, it won't ever be reality.

This isn't what we're talking about. It's like having a discussion on how the water is a factor in why pizza outside the NYC area are terrible and how that can be fixed, and you keep jumping in and going "why aren't we talking about the toppings!"

I'm trying to discuss a very specific issue with the economy. You keep trying to bring it around to an entirely unrelated issue with the economy. Yes, it's all issues, but you can't keep steering the conversation back to where you're comfortable. The government is spending too much. Not a single person here is denying that.

Sorry, you're just wrong in saying you should discuss "EVERYTHING." That's just not a possibility. If you discuss "EVERYTHING," you get into depth on "NOTHING." In reality, there are hundreds of factors that impact the economy. I'm not interested in discussing all of them right now, I'm interested in discussing one of the most basic root causes that we disagree on.

I don't really know what your second sentence has to do with anything. My arguments have all been about strengthening the middle class, so you acting as if I'm discounting them is strange. Also, no, the top 1%s spending isn't significant in the economy. Why not? Because they're only 1%. There's only so much spending they can do.

Also, go get a goddamn degree in anything fucking business related, take a class, read a book and mention which goddamn book, cite a fucking study or set of numbers and post the link to it, and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've done all of that in this thread.

Liberal policies always shrink the middle class, read a history book instead of trying to redefine it like your ilk always does.

If you really wanted to strengthen the middle class you'd not be voting for democrats in the first place.

I get it, you want to pick and choose certain aspects of the economy to paint a pretty picture, reality doesn't work like that.

Again you know nothing about me, stop claiming you do mr I make so much money but give nothing back. Want to pay more taxes? Go head, I doubt the government would tell you no. There you go, there's your solution! All you liberals that claim all we need to do is tax more can just give up more. Win win!

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 17:25:The nicest thing about 2016 will be that RollinThundr will be unable to mention Obamas name ever again.

Well, he probably will, because he's a hypocrite. Someone mention Bush (which I rarely do but he apparently thinks I do every post) and he gets all bent out of shape. So I can only assume that, when a new president is in office, the word "Obama" will be out of his vocabulary.

It'll be awesome once he's out, regardless of which party gets in. Most damaging president since Carter, hands down.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 16:42:Explain to me then why we don't get mass media attention when 5 black teens kill a WW2 vet in his 80's for a whopping 20 bucks? Explain to me why we don't get mass media coverage when 4 blacks torture, rape, mutilate and kill a white couple in Tennessee? Or when they kill a white baseball player because "they were bored?" where's the mass outrage? If you for one minute tell me there's not a bias to not report massive crimes like that based on skin color, while proclaiming African Americans only as victims, like the Jessie Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world do on a daily basis, then you're either 1, an out right liar, or 2. You feel so guilty because slavery happened then I don't know what to tell you.

But saying all that makes me a racist obviously, because I don't think ANYONE should get special treatment based on color, and I'm a racist because I think you should be capable of being a productive member of society regardless of color. That's what racism is in America these days. It's sickening much like political correctness is sickening.

You asked this same question earlier and I gave you the answer, and you had no response to it. You’ve apparently already purged the answer from your mind because it doesn’t fit in with all the idiocy stored in there. The reason it doesn’t make a big news splash (although it certainly did make the news, as I found out about two of those events because they were front page news on MSN.com) is because the perpetrators were immediately arrested and charged with the crimes, as they should be. So what exactly is your issue?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 16:42:This is why I keep telling you you're illogical when talking about the economy, you cannot just pick and choose what factors affect an economy to suit your bias, you either talk about EVERYTHING that encompasses an economy, or you shut the fuck up.

Who do you think buys the products or services that corporations make & provide that contribute to an economy? The poor? Only other 1%'ers? Just the middle class? No EVERYONE but especially the middle class.

How do you think government spending affects investments, that then affects job growth and growth in general? Oh whats that? Government spending doesn't matter? Just taxes matter?

This is why I hate even bringing up economy with you, because you clearly have no fucking idea how the economy actually works, or just how many factors tie into it. You just repeat over and over the same flawed liberal class warfare bullshit talking points that no matter how many times you say it, it won't ever be reality.

You’ve conclusively proven here that you know nothing about economics, and specifically you have no answer to the question that Beamer asked. It’s not magic. The money exists and went somewhere. Your sputtering and blathering on about stuff you don’t understand isn’t answering anything.

1%er's, Politician pet projects? Various other government spending? All of the above? Neither do you, neither does beamer.

Although making the statement and sticking with it that government spending does fuck all to effect the economy is flat out wrong, and anyone who believes that to be true, obviously doesn't have much a clue much like you're claiming I don't.

It's also quite bullshit in regards to national media coverage, most of those crimes are swept under the rug, and you'd never hear Obama chime in on those cases, the fact that you can't even come to admit there's a general liberal bias in media to begin with speaks volumes, although with how much fail Obamacare has been so far even the left leaning stations can't spin that shit in a positive light at this point.

JSP wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 15:04:Republicans not raising taxes? I laugh. Remember Ronald Reagan? Republicans have been responsible in expanding government by unprecedented amount and increasing the deficit by unprecedented amount, nearly tanking the economy just a few years ago. Oh, and remember that war in Iraq that cost a trillion? Never Republican logic? I laugh and laugh. GTFO

They are the sides of the same coin I say, with the Libertarian tards thinking they are the answer lapping up Ron Paul's senile ramblings. Yeah you do that.

Reagan also had a cold war to fight, that doesn't excuse the debt he ran up either, I've said that before. The difference with Reagan is he wasn't a divider like Obama, he loved his country, I'm not sure I can say the same about the Narcissist in Chief we currently have though.

I agree that for the most part they are two sides of the same coin, that being said however, again you don't see republicans pushing for more oppressive gun laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment, you also generally don't see republicans pushing for more government control and oversight into people's daily lives. Want a large coke in NY? Fuck you, it's too fattening, we'll decide what you can drink, like the healthcare plan you already have? Well you can kee.. Oh wait no you can't! Well at least it'll be chea.. oh wait no no it won't.

Bubu..but.. BUSH AND HIS WARS! Obama and Lybia and Syria. Let's be honest here, unless we start voting in people who have consistent voting records, and a consistent message of honoring the Constitution, honoring the rights afforded to us in the Bill of Rights, you're going to get more of the same from either party.

The only people who appear to be doing that? Are the Ted Cruz and Rand Pauls, but what do you lefties do? You demonize them, call them nutbags, try to invalidate their message because apparently you enjoy more of the same? I don't know. Personally it makes no sense to me to think that way, but like I keep saying liberals and reality are often not even on the same page never mind in the same book.

Thought I had included your previous post before hitting send, it still stands though, I hate the double standard that it's ok and even excused to be an unproductive member of society just because, COLOR!

No one is "excusing" anyone for being unproductive. But many people who are unproductive need a little help to become productive - it seems to me that it would be more helpful enacting programs to do just that rather than getting mad at them (or one particular group of them as you seem to be), browbeating them, abandoning them, or disregarding them. And again, poverty isn't a 'color' issue. If race seems to be at the forefront of things like violence and poverty I say you can thank the media. If it riles everyone up about race it gets more people watching their news - it's good business to have separate groups at odds. It gets people emotional and escaltes the "war" that they are all to ready to report on, and the process continues.

Explain to me then why we don't get mass media attention when 5 black teens kill a WW2 vet in his 80's for a whopping 20 bucks? Explain to me why we don't get mass media coverage when 4 blacks torture, rape, mutilate and kill a white couple in Tennessee? Or when they kill a white baseball player because "they were bored?" where's the mass outrage? If you for one minute tell me there's not a bias to not report massive crimes like that based on skin color, while proclaiming African Americans only as victims, like the Jessie Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world do on a daily basis, then you're either 1, an out right liar, or 2. You feel so guilty because slavery happened then I don't know what to tell you.

But saying all that makes me a racist obviously, because I don't think ANYONE should get special treatment based on color, and I'm a racist because I think you should be capable of being a productive member of society regardless of color. That's what racism is in America these days. It's sickening much like political correctness is sickening.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 15:42:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 13:54:As to where it's going? Out in the street more than likely, we certainly haven't cut any sort of serious spending at any level of government now have we? But no, I'm sure you'll come back and explain to us all that it's the CEO's, and big evil business.

It in the street?Ok, so you don't know what total personal income is. That's fine, though I wish you'd Google it before you'd respond. I'll do it for you. Per the United States' Bureau of Economic Analysis, total personal income is is the sum of compensation of employees (received), supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj), rental income of persons with CCAdj, personal income receipts on assets, and personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance.In other words, total personal income is the total amount of money that US citizens earn in some capacity. I'd prefer the total private income, as it strips out all that government stuff, but I can't find that anywhere.

So, to recap:- the amount of money US citizens earn, as a whole, has risen drastically. It's gone up 57% since 2000, which I think we'd all agree far outstrips inflation- the taxation level has actually decreased, from about 21% to 20%- the US labor force has fallen percentagewise from ~66% to 63%, but since the country is larger it's actually gone up about 10 million people- by your own admission, wages have not increased

Given all this, your answer to where that massive jump in personal income went is... to the street? That doesn't make any money. Significantly more US money has been earned, taxation has decreased marginally, and the amount of people working has increased marginally.So if that money isn't going to the middle class wages, and isn't going to the poor wages, where is it going?

"The street" is as logical an answer to that question as "blue."Also, SHUT UP about government spending when asked about this. We're talking solely money citizens earn. Government spending is not part of this conversation. You keep trying to bring it back there because you do not understand what we are talking about.

This is why I keep telling you you're illogical when talking about the economy, you cannot just pick and choose what factors affect an economy to suit your bias, you either talk about EVERYTHING that encompasses an economy, or you shut the fuck up.

Who do you think buys the products or services that corporations make & provide that contribute to an economy? The poor? Only other 1%'ers? Just the middle class? No EVERYONE but especially the middle class.

How do you think government spending affects investments, that then affects job growth and growth in general? Oh whats that? Government spending doesn't matter? Just taxes matter?

This is why I hate even bringing up economy with you, because you clearly have no fucking idea how the economy actually works, or just how many factors tie into it. You just repeat over and over the same flawed liberal class warfare bullshit talking points that no matter how many times you say it, it won't ever be reality.

Bodolza wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 12:58:In case your not sure how politics works, when it comes to voting time, the choice will either be Feinstein, or the Republican candidate, who's always even more authoritarian.

oh ffs, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, Feinstein, Bloomberg, all liberals, all about as authoritarian as they come.

Libertarians talk about protecting our rights and honoring the Constitution, which party goes out of their way to trash it on a regular basis? You guessed it, Liberals and Rino republicans, who may as well call themselves liberals.

Which party always wants to push tougher gun regulations? Hint it isn't republicans, which party always wants you and I to pay more in taxes so they can continue to spend like the world is ending tomorrow? Hint it isn't republicans.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 11:07:Do I need to type it in all caps so it sinks in? WHEN YOU KEEP PRINTING MONEY, SPENDING HAND OVER FOOT, CAUSING INFLATION AND MAKING THE DOLLAR WORTH LESS WITHOUT RAISING WAGES YOU'RE GOING TO SHRINK THE MIDDLE CLASS!

Beamer: BUT BUT THE RICH! IT's ALL THEM CEO'S!! No you fucking moron it's not entirely big business. You can't pick and choose what factors affect the economy to suit an ideology, reality doesn't fucking work that way.

Stop now. Why aren't we raising wages? Like I said, the total personal income in the US is significantly higher than it's ever been. I can post the graph later on, when I'm at work (it's in my laptop sitting next to me and I don't feel like booting it.)

So, if there is more aggregate income in the US than ever before, and taxation percentages have decreased, why have we not raised wages? Were is that money going?

No, seriously, where is that money going?That isn't rhetorical, in response to that giant rant you just made, I expect an answer.

edit "ADHOM!"

No shit there are poor white people lots of them, however they aren't given a pass by the media and everyone else based on skin pixelation which is more racist? Dishonest reporting and mentality? Or pointing it out?

It's most certainly rhetorical because you know or you think you know where it's going right Beamer? THOSE EVIL 1% CEO'S CLASSWARFARE RAWR!!Bitch please.

Why did you quote something that doesn't mention race?And why didn't you quote the part where I say I don't think rich people are evil if you're going to then pretend I said rich people are evil?

Lastly, sorry, this is why I constantly call you an asshole: you say something stupid, get called on it, then pretend it never happened.RollinThundr, you complained that wages aren't rising. But taxation also isn't rising and personal income is rising. So, RollinThundr, where is that income going?Please answer this question.

Thought I had included your previous post before hitting send, it still stands though, I hate the double standard that it's ok and even excused to be an unproductive member of society just because, COLOR!

When African Americans stop committing Per capita, 7x more murders and don't account for 90% of black on black crime as per the Fbi data, yet the national media decides it's only balanced to make a federal case out of a "White Hispanic" defending himself from getting pounded into the pavement, I may have more feelings towards those poor people who are just so discriminated against in today's society, with things like affirmative action and the entire liberal party running to their defense every 5 fucking minutes like the boy who cried wolf.

As to where it's going? Out in the street more than likely, we certainly haven't cut any sort of serious spending at any level of government now have we? But no, I'm sure you'll come back and explain to us all that it's the CEO's, and big evil business.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 1, 2013, 11:07:Do I need to type it in all caps so it sinks in? WHEN YOU KEEP PRINTING MONEY, SPENDING HAND OVER FOOT, CAUSING INFLATION AND MAKING THE DOLLAR WORTH LESS WITHOUT RAISING WAGES YOU'RE GOING TO SHRINK THE MIDDLE CLASS!

Beamer: BUT BUT THE RICH! IT's ALL THEM CEO'S!! No you fucking moron it's not entirely big business. You can't pick and choose what factors affect the economy to suit an ideology, reality doesn't fucking work that way.

Stop now. Why aren't we raising wages? Like I said, the total personal income in the US is significantly higher than it's ever been. I can post the graph later on, when I'm at work (it's in my laptop sitting next to me and I don't feel like booting it.)

So, if there is more aggregate income in the US than ever before, and taxation percentages have decreased, why have we not raised wages? Were is that money going?

No, seriously, where is that money going?That isn't rhetorical, in response to that giant rant you just made, I expect an answer.

edit "ADHOM!"

No shit there are poor white people lots of them, however they aren't given a pass by the media and everyone else based on skin pixelation which is more racist? Dishonest reporting and mentality? Or pointing it out?

It's most certainly rhetorical because you know or you think you know where it's going right Beamer? THOSE EVIL 1% CEO'S CLASSWARFARE RAWR!!Bitch please.

No, not even close. Today's poor ghettos are NOTHING like what life was like back then. The crime is still shit (although nowhere near as bad), but they actually have electricity, clean water, sanitation. Hell, we live in a country where the poor own Playstations and cell phones. It's practically impossible to starve to death. Our poor are like the middle class for most of the world. But keep on exaggerating reality to justify reaching for that liberal utopia you will never see.

He really isn't incorrect. Yes the poor in America have it better than the poor in almost every other country, but he was talking the income gap. Yes, the standard of living has improved for the poor, but at the same time the rich (who I have nothing against, believe me - hell I wish I was one of the "evil rich"! ) have seen their incomes and wealth skyrocket, meaning the gap remains equally as large.

If you are so upset about the "wealth disparity" maybe you should donate some of your vast wealth you claimed to have. What about those 14 combined poor guys you claim to make more than? Be charitable or shut up. Do you even know any poor people? Have you ever spent 1 hour of your life in a soup kitchen? Have you ever donated to a food bank? Do you do anything unlike the typical liberal talking about the poor without acting?

I'm confused as to why empathizing with the poor who need help (not talking about the ones who do nothing to help themselves here) and looking for societal solutions to do so somehow means one should feel obligated to give up his own wealth to do so. Especially when the scale of the problem is such that one person donating everything he or she has but the shirt on their back won't make a dent in the problem. Donating your time at a shelter or soup kitchen is indeed a worthy and noble effort, but by itself will not fix the root causes for the widespread poverty in some places. Not everyone who lives under the poverty line is a deadbeat loser who wants to leech off of society while getting fat on twinkies and ribeyes paid for with welfare money.

Personally I think the answer lies more in education and cultural change rather than "robbing the rich to give to the poor" but even so things like that will take time and money. I don't think it's okay to just say that they should either suck it up and except their lot in life or figure it all out on their own, because chances are they won't.

Because Prez, if you suggest culture change, automatically out comes the "you're racist!" card. Want to know the reason blacks have such a hard time being productive? It's simple, the majority have no sense of a family unit or a structured environment, women popping out kids with multiple fathers, often no father figures, drug abuse, etc. and what do we do as a response to that? We reward them, with more handouts, more welfare, that it produces people like this low life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E

Oh nos expecting someone with darker skin pixelation to be a productive member of society! HOW DARE YOU RACIST! Then you have the professional race baiters on the left like Sharpton.

Then you have the left leaning media, who will make a federal case out of things like the Zimmerman case, enough so that even Obama has to put his 2 worthless cents in "Treyvon could have been my son!"

You point this out? like I am here? Racist! which I'm sure beamer will be along any moment to confirm. the reason blacks often portray themselves as only victims is because people are afraid of being labeled a racist if they don't go along with it. Fuck that noise.

Do you think my state will stop flooding the tv with annoying Obamacare commercials? You only get one chance at a first impression and they blew it big time. People are not going to return in the numbers needed to save this monster.

The liberals are TOAST in 2014 now that millions are losing policies and being forced to spend more for extra coverage they don't need, simply because Obama thinks everyone must have drug addiction counseling, gender reassignment and maternity coverage, even 60 year old men.

Many of the existing policies are deemed substandard under ObamaCare. All new policies are required to carry new consumer protections — such as the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions — and carry 10 “essential health benefits,” including maternity and pediatric care, substance abuse and mental health treatment, chronic disease care, and prescription drug, dental and vision coverage.

You know because it makes sense that males should have to pay for maternity leave, I didn't realize the liberals figured out a way to defy science along with mathematics in order to ensure men can have babies now too.

Or is that preemptive planning after they feminize anyone who doesn't buy into their SJW bullshit.